Black People’s Mistrust of Banks Goes All The Way Back to the 1800s

blackbankThe mistrust of banks and unwillingness many Black people—especially older folks—have about placing their money in them is not a new phenomenon. Not even close. Indeed, this position of wariness of financial institutions was spawned long ago, with the establishment of the first bank for Black people in the 1800s.

Less than a month before he was assassinated, Abraham Lincoln signed the Freedman’s Bank Act that authorized the organization of a national bank for Black people recently freed from slavery—a grand notion in theory, but one that ended up costing many unsuspecting African-Americans their life savings.

The Freedman’s Bank grew rapidly, with 34 branches opening in 10 years with more than $3 million in assets. But on June 26, 1874, the bank closed amid controversy.

Six months prior to closing, the United States Congress approved the banking institution. A white northerner named John W. Alvord was the bank’s first president. He was a former minister and attaché to General William Tecumseh Sherman during the Civil War.

He traveled throughout the South recruiting Blacks using endorsements from General OO Howard (the commissioner of the Freedmen’s Bureau) as an enticement. Alvord told them, “As an order from Howard … Negro soldiers should deposit their bounty money with him.”

A bank using the savings and income of Black depositors to advance the economic fortunes of whites was a major paradox—and a blueprint for swindling. Sure enough, corruption followed and the bank’s management was replaced with a variety of Black elites, most notably Frederick Douglass, who was appointed to head the bank in March of 1874.

These changes did not prevent the bank’s closing, with Douglass later describing the experience as being unwittingly “married to a corpse.”

By 1900 only $1,638,259.49, or 62 percent of the total amount of deposits prior to the bank’s failure, had been paid back to Black depositors. Deposits worth some $22 million of Black people’s money in today’s dollars were gone. In the end, most Black depositors lost their savings, receiving little to no money back from the bank or the federal government.

Today, there are just 19 Black-owned banks in the country, and almost 70 percent of them are in dire financial straits.

Vibrant financial institutions run by Black people are critical to fabric of communities. WEB DuBois and Booker T Washington did not agree on most, but they thought similarly about the pain the loss of Black banks delivered.

DuBois said: “Then in one sad day came the crash—all the hard-earned dollars of the freedmen disappeared; but that was the least of the loss—all the faith in saving went too, and much of the faith in men; and that was a loss that a nation which to-day sneers at Negro shiftlessness has never yet made good.”

Added Washington: “When they found out that they had lost, or been swindled out of all their savings, they lost faith in savings banks, and it was a long time after this before it was possible to mention a savings bank for Negroes without some reference being made to the disaster of [the Freedmen’s Bank].”

Independent journalism still matters.

We hope this story was worth your time. For over 14 years, Atlanta Black Star has stayed Black-owned and independently run. We didn't get here by waiting on ad budgets that were never built to prioritize us. Our readers did that.

Corporate support for Black media has always been thin. Outlets like ours get roughly 1% of the $170 billion spent on U.S. advertising each year, and that margin is shrinking further as advertisers walk back the DEI-linked commitments they made in 2020. That's the backdrop. It's not why we're asking.

The wider picture isn't any steadier. Newspaper ad revenue has fallen more than 80% since 2005, and local newsrooms are closing at a rate of roughly two a week nationwide. When outlets go under, it's rarely the ones built to center a Black perspective from the ground up that get to stick around.

We know a request for support isn't why you came here. But without readers choosing to fund this work directly, the depth of reporting we can do at home and abroad shrinks along with everyone else's. If you're not in a position to give, that doesn't change how much we value you as a reader.

If you are able to, a recurring contribution does more for us than a single one-time gift, because it lets us plan the next investigation instead of just the next invoice. It takes about 30 seconds, no long form, no account. Thank you for continuing to support independent journalism and freedom of the press.

Back to top